[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12312]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7312; Notice 1]


General Motors North America, Notice of Application for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors North America (GM) has determined that on some 1995-
1999 model year GMC and Chevrolet trucks and on some 1997-1999 Pontiac 
Grand Prix cars, the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) could 
briefly illuminate if the hazard flasher switch is depressed to its 
limit of travel. This condition would not meet the lighting 
requirements of S5.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.'' 
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120 (h), GM has petitioned for a 
determination that this condition is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of an application as 
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. This action does not represent 
any agency decision of other exercise of judgment concerning the merits 
of the application.
    FMVSS No. 108 establishes the requirements for signaling to enable 
safe operation in darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. 
Under S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 108, the CHMSL on each vehicle shall be 
activated only upon application of the service brakes. During Model 
Year 1995-1999 GM produced 3,375,393 vehicles with a CHMSL that could 
briefly illuminate if the hazard flasher switch is depressed to its 
limit of travel. The vehicles that may have this condition are 1995-
1999 model year GMC and Chevrolet trucks and some 1997-1999 Pontiac 
Grand Prix cars.
    GM supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance by 
stating the following:

    The possibility of unintended CHMSL illumination is very low, 
for several reasons. Hazard flashers are infrequently used in 
service. The condition can occur only when the hazard flasher switch 
is at the extreme bottom of travel. To turn the hazard flashers on 
or off, one need merely push the hazard flasher switch. It is not 
necessary to push the switch all the way to its limit of travel. 
Even when the switch is depressed all the way to its limit of 
travel, CHMSL illumination may not occur. In approximately 50% of 
the switches it would be moderately difficult to get a CHMSL 
activation. With these switches, it is also necessary to apply a 
side force to the hazard flasher switch (in addition to having the 
switch at its bottom of travel) before the CHMSL might illuminate.
    Even if the condition does occur, the duration of unintended 
CHMSL illumination would be very brief. The hazard flasher switch 
requires less than a second in total to turn the flashers on or off, 
and only for a fraction of this total time would the switch be all 
the way to its limit of travel.
    About one-third of the affected vehicles have incandescent 
CHMSLs. In these vehicles, visible illumination of the CHMSL would 
not occur unless the hazard switch were depressed to its full limit 
of travel and held there long enough for the incandescent bulb 
filaments to heat and become visible. Therefore, unless the hazard 
switch was deliberately held at its limit of travel, and possibly 
with a side force, any unintended CHMSL illumination would be 
momentary and as a practical matter virtually imperceptible.
    Even if a visible CHMSL illumination occurs upon hazard flasher 
activation, it would almost certainly have no adverse effect on 
safety. Hazard flasher lights are typically used when the vehicle is 
off the road or out of traffic. However, if a CHMSL illuminated due 
to this condition when the vehicle was on the road, a following 
driver would likely see a brief single flash of the CHMSL. As a 
practical matter, the following driver might not notice this flash 
at all. Even if he or she did, there would seem to be no likelihood 
of driver confusion or inappropriate responses. In reaching this 
view, we have considered the following situations and would invite 
the agency's consideration of them as well:
    A driver who turns on the hazard flasher switch does so in order 
to alert others to some situation that the driver judges to be a 
highway safety hazard. Indeed, the owner's manual in each of these 
vehicles states as much: Your hazard warning flashers let you warn 
others. They also let police know you have a problem.
    When the driver turns them on, the hazard lamps on these 
vehicles commence flashing immediately after the driver releases the 
switch. In this situation, any momentarily illuminated CHMSL would 
augment the hazard alert to following drivers.
    If the hazard flasher switch is being turned off, the CHMSL 
could be illuminated momentarily while the hazard lamps are 
flashing. A following driver is unlikely to react inappropriately to 
a momentary CHMSL illumination when two hazard lamps are already 
flashing.
    In many situations, it seems likely that a driver suddenly 
approaching a hazard situation might want to slow down, and 
therefore the service brakes would be applied when the hazard switch 
is depressed. In this case, the CHMSL would remain illuminated by 
the service brakes as required by FMVSS 108. This situation would 
pose no safety or compliance issue because the CHMSL would already 
be on.
    The CHMSL (and the remainder of the vehicle lighting) otherwise 
meets all of the requirements of FMVSS 108.
    GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints or 
field reports for the subject vehicles related to this condition.
    NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for a 
similar condition. In 1995, General Motors petitioned for 
inconsequential treatment for a noncompliance while the hazard 
switch was being used (reference Mr. Milford Bennett letter to Dr. 
Ricardo Martinez dated June 16, 1995). The agency subsequently 
granted inconsequential treatment for this condition (reference 
Docket 95-57, Notice 2 published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 
2865, January 29, 1996). No one opposed the application. NHTSA found 
in that situation that ``the transient activation of the CHMSL, a 
false signal, is highly unlikely to mislead a following driver,'' at 
2865-2866.
    The current situation would appear to be even less of a highway 
safety issue, because (a) the previous condition could occur at 
various positions within the normal operating travel of the hazard 
switch, while the current condition can only occur at the extreme 
bottom of travel of the hazard switch; and (b), the previous 
condition could involve up to three momentary flashes of the CHMSL, 
while the current condition only has the potential for a single 
momentary illumination of the CHMSL.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the application described above. Comments should refer to 
the docket number and be submitted to : U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC, 20590. It is requested that two copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the 
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment 
closing date: June 15, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: May 10, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-12312 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P